| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: mkfs under different kernels |
| From: | Feizhou <feizhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:38:16 +0800 |
| Cc: | XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1078936304.18173.4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <404F1F68.30700@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <404F2546.90904@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1078936304.18173.4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208) |
Eric Sandeen wrote: > mkfs does query the kernel for device size, stripe info, etc. > So if 2.4 returns a different answer than 2.6, that's the only > difference I can see that might matter. > > But the short answer is that it should not make a difference. > > You can do a quick test; if the mkfs.xfs output does not change, then > there is no difference. > Thanks. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] backing dev unplugging, Steve Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Bug : XFS - XSCALE "Directory Not Empty", Mike Burger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: mkfs under different kernels, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | ran into rare bug: "unable to verify superblock, continuing...", Errikos Pitsos {secure} |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |